Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing vs Oracle Application Testing Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
24th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.7%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.7%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.6%
Other90.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Automation Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at Cignity Technology
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"OpenScript has many features that make it useful, including the ability to record and playback."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"The graphics are very intuitive and it's very easy to get scale of development."
"I like the functional testing. There's a product inside OATS called OLT, Oracle Load Testing. You can do the load testing without depending on any other tool"
"The function test feature is valuable."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"Has good automation and load-testing capabilities."
"The solution is scalable."
 

Cons

"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"Technical support could be improved."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Licensing policies could be more intuitive."
"Lacks patches for new OS systems and doesn't work on a Mac."
"If there's a feature we want in OATS that's missing and we report that to Oracle, it takes a long time."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"We would like to see the instruction documentation made into video or audio formats, to help new users get used to the modules."
"I have faced issues with some indexing items."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The price is reasonable."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The tool's price is high."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
5%
Government
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Performing Arts
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,259 professionals have used our research since 2012.